Managing Value Co-Creation through Interfaces with Suppliers

International Business Research; Vol. 7, No. 4; 2014 ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 11 Managing Value Co-Creation through Interfaces with Suppliers Catarina Roseira1 & Carlos Brito1 1 Faculty of Economics, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal Correspondence: Carlos Brito, Faculty of Economics, University of Porto, Rua Roberto Frias, 4200-464 Porto, Portugal. Tel: 351-22-557-1100. E-mail: [email protected] Received: January 20, 2014 Accepted: February 20, 2014 Online Published: March 26, 2014 doi: 10.5539/ibr.v7n4p11 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v7n4p11 Abstract The growing specialization of firms and the reinforcement of vertical disintegration have led to an increasing reliance on purchasing and supply management. This means that an increasing proportion of value is created outside the boundaries of the firm, namely by suppliers. In this context, the paper aims to relate the configuration of the bonds companies establish with their suppliers to the process of value creation. On the basis of a case study approach, the paper furthers our understanding of buyer-supplier relationships as mechanisms for the coordination and development of capabilities on both sides of the dyad. Evidence was found that relationships affect not only the access and exploration of suppliers’ resources, but also the perception the buying firm has about their capabilities which is likely to condition the potential for joint value creation. The main contribution of the paper is that co-creating value with suppliers is not a recipe. It is not the ‘right’ solution in all instances. Rather, value co-creation involving suppliers must be regarded as a strategic option which depends on several conditions. This research puts in evidence two of these conditions: suppliers’ capabilities and the way the buyer-seller relationships are configured. Keywords: buyer-supplier relationships, capabilities, relationship configuration, value creation 1. Introduction Firms have been reformulating their business models and competitive bases leading to a growing specialization and interdependency with suppliers (Florén & Lee, 2013; La Rocca & Snehota, 2014). Firms are increasingly involving suppliers in the development of new products and facing new management problems as reported in several studies (Croom & Batchelor, 1997; Handfield, Ragatz, Petersen, & Moncza, 1999; Ragatz, Handfield, & Petersen, 2002; Petersen, Handfield, & Ragatz, 2005; McIvor, Humphreys, & Cadden, 2006; Wagner & Hoegl, 2006, Valjakka, Kansola, Hakanen, & Valkikari, 2013; Rosell, Lakemond, & Wasti, 2014). Innovation, in particular, has received a special attention of researchers (Oinonen & Jalkala, 2012; Martinez, 2013). In this context, supplier management deals with issues of substantial diversity. Firms buy very different things from their suppliers (e.g., standardized products, development activities, information, brands and even reputation) and this requires different capabilities both from the customers and the suppliers’ side. From the supplier side, the creation of value for customers has been considered a key issue in buyer-seller relationships (Wilson & Jantrania, 1995; Hogan, 2001; Eggert & Ulaga, 2002; Möller & Törrönen, 2003; Ulaga, 2003; Ulaga & Eggert, 2005, 2006; Moeller, Fassnacht, & Klose, 2006). Researchers in business-to-business marketing have focused their efforts in understanding such value both at the relationship level (Boyd & Spekman, 2004; Hammervoll, 2005; Möller, 2006; Aarikka-Stenroos & Jaakkola, 2012) and at the network level (Baxter & Matear, 2004; Ehret, 2004; Eng, 2005; Holmen, Aune, & Pedersen, 2013; Mena, Humphries, & Choi, 2013). However, value is not only created by the seller who delivers it to the buyer. Rather, in most cases it is co-created by both parties through collaborative processes that involve the access to mutual resources and capabilities as well the coordination of activities (Mele, 2008; Grönroos, 2011; Day, Fawcett, Fawcett, & Magnan, 2013). Over the past few years, significant research has been conducted on value co-creation. Möller (2006), adopting a value-creation logic approach, introduces the role of competences in creating customer value. Matthyssens, Vandenbempt, and Berghman (2006) relate value creation to the innovation process. And more recently, a number of authors address value co-creation (e.g., Cova & Salle, 2008; Lindberg & Nordin, 2008; Matthyssens & Vandenbempt, 2008; Vargo & Lusch, 2008; Leroy, Cova, & Salle, 2012; Engelseth & Törnroos, 2013; Roser, DeFillippi, & Samson, 2013; Randall, Wittmann, Nowicki, & Pohlen, 2014). Nonetheless, most of the research www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 4; 2014 12 focuses on the customer side. For instance, Grönroos (2006, p. 234) says that “suppliers only create the resources or means to make it possible for customers to create value for themselves. (…) When suppliers and customers interact, they are engaged in co-creation of value”. And Vargo and Lusch, in a set of papers that are considered landmarks in this field (Lusch & Vargo, 2006a, 2006b; Vargo & Lusch, 2004a, 2004b), explore the way value is constructed: “the customer is always a co-creator of value” (Lusch & Vargo, 2006b, p. 284). More recently, O'Cass and Ngo (2012) show how product innovation and marketing influence the ability to co-create value for B2B firms on the basis of suppliers’ capabilities. By co-creating both the meaning and function of their experiences, customers co-generate value for themselves (Chakkol, Johnson, Raja, & Raffoni, 2014). This puts in evidence the strategic importance of supply management for value creation and the growing interest for buyer-supplier relationships (Gadde & Persson, 2004; Menon, Homburg, & Beutin, 2005; Ivens, Vijver, & Vo s , 2 0 1 3 ) . H o w e v e r, t h e r e s e e m s t o b e s u b s t a n t i a l g a p s i n h o w f i r m s a c t u a l l y m a n a g e t h e i r s u p p l i e r relationships and its impact on value creation. Möller (2006, p. 914), in an article on value creation, states that “there is a clear need for research that explores inter-organizational collaboration in value-production where the traditional roles of suppliers and customers are becoming more complex and intertwined, and where the players have to be able to develop new collaborative competences”. Later, Wagner, Eggert and Linmann (2008, p. 1) declare that “researchers have almost exclusively focused on value once it has been created and shared among the respective relationship partners. (…) It comes as a surprise that conceptual as well empirical research on value creation and value sharing in collaborative relationships remains so limited”. More recently, Kim, Cavusgil, and Cavusgil (2013, p. 880) state that "despite the potent of value creation, most studies focus on the importance of creating customer value through individual firm's efforts (...) ignoring the potential from the collaborative efforts among supply chain partners". Indeed, little is known about the type of goals or benefits industrial firms look for in their suppliers and how these goals condition the way they relate to each other. Since what suppliers do for their customers strongly depends on the actions of customers themselves (Gadde & Persson, 2004), it seems useful to have a better understanding of how suppliers’ resources and capabilities are perceived and managed. In this context, the paper aims to relate the configuration of the relationships companies establish with their suppliers to the process of value creation. The article is organized as follows. In the second section, we review some central concepts of both the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) group and the Capabilities Approach that are combined in the third section to produce the conceptual model that has guided the interpretation of our empirical data. The section which follows addresses the methodology used in the research process. The fifth section describes the cases studied, and is followed by a section where the research findings are presented and discussed. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of the main theoretical and managerial contributions. 2. Theoretical Background This section focuses on some of the IMP and Capabilities Approach’s basic concepts that seem especially relevant in the context of value creation in supply management. The discussion of the complementarities between these approaches will lead to the identification of some issues that, despite their relevance, are still not fully explored and constitute the focus of this paper. 2.1 The IMP Perspective on Supply Management IMP researchers have been extensively studying industrial relationships concluding that they may assume a wide range of configurations according to their characterization in several dimensions, such as their atmosphere, continuity, complexity, intensity, symmetry (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995; Ford et al., 1998) or interfaces (Araújo, Dubois, & Gadde, 1999). Several authors (cf. Blois, 1998; Gadde & Snehota, 2000) contend that relationships must be managed according to the costs and benefits accruing to firms from those relationships. A possible way to analyze this issue is to consider the effects that firms are trying to achieve in their supplier connections. IMP authors (cf. Håkansson & Johanson, 1993; Anderson, Håkansson, & Johanson, 1994; Ford & McDowell, 1999) have emphasized that relationships in industrial settings have both direct and indirect functions. Direct functions produce effects such as cost reduction, product quality, volume and sourcing safeguard. Indirect functions can result in network developing (suppliers work as bridges between the customer and other actors), information scouting (customers obtain market or technical information through suppliers) and innovation development. In short, while direct functions are related to efficiency goals, indirect functions are associated with innovation (products, processes, markets) goals (Walter, Müller, Helfert, & Ritter, 2003). The importance of indirect functions is that they are a sine qua non condition for value co-creation between buyers and sellers (Möller, 2006). Direct and indirect functions produce direct and indirect effects. Direct effects emerge from, or are reflected www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 4; 2014 13 upon, the relationship of dyadic counterparts. Indirect effects emerge from, or are reflected upon, relationships between dyadic counterparts and other actors. As Ford and McDowell (1999) explain, while some of these effects may be managed and controlled, others are unintended or even unforeseen by one or both relationship participants. Goal setting and relationship configuration are considered to be essential elements for value creation in supply management. The value of a supplier relationship depends on the customer’s goals, operations, strategy and other relationships and, consequently, cannot be deducted directly from the products and services being exchanged (Ford et al., 2003; Gadde & Snehota, 2000). Rather, the value of a supplier depends on its ability to perform the functions sought by the customer, and this ability depends on his endowment of capabilities (Möller & Törrönen, 2003). The analysis of suppliers’ capabilities may help to evaluate their potential to produce the desired effects. As argued by several authors (Araújo et al., 1999; Ford et al., 2003; Gadde & Persson, 2004), increasing efficiency or achieving innovation goals requires different combinations of distinct capabilities on both sides of the dyad. However, the existence of adequate supportive capabilities does not assure their full exploration. The type of relationship connecting customers and suppliers, e.g., the roles played by the actors, their posture within the relationship and the structure of interfaces condition how capabilities and resources will be explored in order to create value (Gadde & Persson, 2004), e.g., the degree of supplier integration in the developing new products (Petersen, Handfield, & Ragatz, 2005). Interfaces translate the technical interdependencies between customers and suppliers and constitute an important dimension of industrial relationships. Araújo et al. (1999) identify four types of interfaces—standardized, specified, translated and interactive. In standardized interfaces, the customer buys a standard product benefiting from the supplier’s economies of scale and scope. In specified interfaces, products are manufactured according to the customer’s specifications and suppliers are mainly used as production capacity buffers. In translated interfaces, the supplier embodies into a specific product the functionalities required by the customer. Finally, in interactive interfaces products are co-produced by both parties fostering the combination of their knowledge. Different interfaces have a different impact on the utilization of both customers and suppliers resources, capabilities, costs, productivity, learning and innovation potential. In addition, supplier management reflects firms’ subjective perceptions of their counterparts’ ability to create value (Makkonen & Olkkonen, 2013; Roseira, Brito, & Ford, 2013). To be considered valuable, suppliers’ resources and capabilities must be seen as important contributions to the relationships (Johnsen & Ford, 2006, 2008). On the one hand, the perception and evaluation of resources and capabilities influence the expectations about the benefits that can be extracted from relationships and, consequently, the interest in investing in those relationships. On the other hand, this subjective evaluation also includes the adequacy of relationship types to the goals defined for each supplier. For instance, cost reduction can be achieved by establishing distant relationships with several suppliers and by fostering competition among them. Conversely, lower prices and other cost reductions often reward customer loyalty (Cannon & Homburg, 2001) or result from the concentration of purchases in a small number of suppliers (Avery, 1999; Birch, 2001). Thus, similar supply goals can be achieved through different relationship types according to the subjective perception of the association between goals and relational configurations. In sum, buyer-supplier relationships have been an important focus of interest in the IMP approach. The notion of direct and indirect functions and the suggestion that suppliers’ capabilities can be seen as a precondition to suppliers’ ability to perform specific functions constitute important elements for a better understanding of how value is co-created in industrial networks. However, the issue of capabilities that has been gaining a higher prominence in the IMP approach is still insufficiently explored. In this context, the Capabilities Approach can be a valuable contribution to a better understanding of relationships as a form to organize the access to suppliers’ capabilities. 2.2 The Capabilities Approach In order to produce and sell a good or a service, firms plan and execute processes requiring the coordination of several internal and external activities (Richardson, 1972, 1998). To coordinate complementary and dissimilar external activities, firms must create relations with each other, i.e., build an external organization, and this requires the development of specific capabilities. In the same vein, Loasby (1996, 1998a) argues that firms must access the knowledge they do not own but still need to be successful. In order to do so, firms need to build a set of relationships with specific counterparts (an external organization) and to develop an adequate bundle of direct and indirect capabilities. Direct capabilities consist of knowing how to “make things” and indirect capabilities of www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 4; 2014 14 knowing how to “get things done by others” (Loasby, 1998a). Indirect capabilities allow firms to specialize while accessing the complementary capabilities detained by their suppliers (Araújo et al., 1999). Furthermore, Araújo et al. (2003) state that suppliers’ capabilities can be ‘merely’ accessed, explored or even developed in combination with the customers’ capabilities. As such, inter-firm relations may be used not only to access capabilities that firms do not control but also to influence them (Handfield et al., 1999; Mota & Castro, 2005). Accessing or influencing external capabilities is likely to require different relational capabilities and relational formats. In addition, it is also suggested that a distinction must be made between activity division—i.e., who designs and manufactures (producing)—and knowledge division—i.e., who holds the knowledge to do it. Firms may outsource activities or knowledge (Fine & Whitney, 1996). In the former case, suppliers work as a mere extension of the customer’s production capacity, as the customer is able to develop and produce the input and retains the knowledge required to do so. In the latter case, since the customer is not able to produce the input, it buys the input as well as the knowledge embedded in it. Thus, as suggested by Brusoni and Prencipe (2001), firms may know more than they make. As inter-firm coordination of activities normally requires some degree of overlapping knowledge, activity boundaries tend to be narrower than knowledge boundaries (Richardson, 1972; Dubois, 1998). The choices about activities and knowledge sharing, i.e., their boundaries, are more decisive than the apparently simple decision about make-or-buy. This decision deals with the option between direct or indirect control of capabilities (Loasby, 1996, 1998b). Direct (or proprietary) control of capabilities is unnecessary if a firm is able to access them effectively through its counterparts (Araújo et al., 2003). Furthermore, the preference for control reduces the firm’s dependency on knowledge and capacity, but also reduces the possibility of creating new knowledge, as this arises from the diversity of conjectures held by different firms (Foss & Loasby, 1998). Thus, if a firm is looking for innovation effects, inter-firm relationships are, from this point of view, more effective than the development of internal activities and capabilities, performed within a firm’s idiosyncratic framing. While firms try to access simultaneously different types of suppliers’ capabilities according to their needs and goals (Gelderman & van Weele, 2005; Wagner & Johnson, 2004), they must also decide if they want to do it in a more static or dynamic way. Loasby (1998b), Araújo et al. (1999) and Foss (1999) state that firms use static capabilities to optimize existent resources (e.g., in terms of economies of scale and scope), and dynamic capabilities to integrate, develop and re-configurate internal and external capabilities and resources. Loasby (1998b) also stresses the need to focus on the range of future activities that capabilities make possible and on the possibility of shaping the capabilities themselves. In a similar view, Araújo et al. (1999) argue that rather than evaluating suppliers’ current offers that express their static efficiency, customers should evaluate supplier’s capabilities that shape their dynamic efficiency and condition their potential to add value to the customer’s business. In short, the Capabilities Approach offers a rich view on the type of capabilities that firms can develop internally or access through their suppliers in order to create value. In this perspective, the access of suppliers’ capabilities cannot be separated from the organization of this access, namely through an adequate investment in inter-firm relationships and capabilities’ structures and the definition of adequate counterpart boundaries. However, it still seems insufficient for understanding buyer-supplier value creation, the type of goals or effects that industrial customers try to obtain through the relationships and how these goals are related to the relationships’ organization, namely how activities and capabilities are shared, and boundaries contracted or expanded in interaction processes. The next section combines the IMP and Capabilities Approach into a framework to analyze the links between the type of goals (translated in value-creating functions and supporting capabilities) to be explored in suppliers and the configuration of relationships designed for that purpose. 3. Research Questions and Framework for Analysis The notion of interaction, central to the IMP conceptual framework, complements and furthers Richardson’s (1972) views on the external organization and inter-firm relations as coordination mechanisms. The Capabilities Approach seems to regard the access of external resources, activities and capabilities as the result of firms’ ability to make the adequate investments, namely in their structure of direct and indirect capabilities (cf. Foss & Loasby, 1998). The IMP perspective has a more complex view on this issue, by contending that customer and supplier interact according to their interests, visions and strategies (cf. Ford et al., 2003; Gadde & Snehota, 2000). As such, the role of suppliers, insufficiently addressed by the Capabilities Approach, is more central in the IMP literature. Authors of this stream of research suggest that suppliers’ capabilities are a pre-condition to perform the direct and indirect functions—including value co-creation—that express supplier management goals (Möller & www.ccse n Törrönen, definition s It is expe c functions a efficiency indirect a n the ability al., 2003; F The exist i relationsh i different t reconfigu r Castro, 2 0 optimizati o p robably r bi-directi o functions a p reconditi o Both the I M functions o and relati o further re s The obje c suppliers t suppliers a main goal -How d -How d Figure 2 p and relati o do with t h which is r e n et.org / ibr 2003). Inasm u s offered by th c ted that direc t a re supported functions to i n n d knowledge to co-create v F oss, 1999; L o i ng literature i p functions ( M t ypes of relati o r ation and de v 0 05). For ex a o n of support i r equires som e o nal nature of a re related to m o ns for the cr e MP and the C o r capabilitie s o nal capabiliti e s earch on valu e c tive of this p t o the proces s a nd the functi o of the paper g d o supplier’s f d oes the suppl y p resents an int e o nships config u h e first researc h e lated to the s e u ch as the I M e Capabilities t or efficiency by dynamic c a n novation fun c oriented capa b v alue is necess o asby, 1998a, 1 Fig u stresses the o M öller & Tö r o nship functi o v elopment of a mple, while i ng capabilitie s e type of rec o indirect func t m ore one-sid e e ation of value apabilities Ap s is condition e e s. These issu e e co-creation. aper is to rel a s of value cr e o ns sought by t g ives rise to th e f unctions and c y managemen t e grated frame w u ration. Firstl y h questions ( Q e cond researc h Internation a M P literature d o Approach are functions are a pabilities (Fi g c tions their mi b ilities as com p arily higher g i 1998b). u re 1. Capabil o mnipresent e f r rönen, 2003). o ns may imp a those capabil i exploiting th e s , exploring n e o nfiguration o r t ions is one t h e creation of v a by both buye r proach persp e e d by the firm ’ e s, which are w a te the confi g e ation. This p t he buying co m e following re s c apabilities co n t process affe c w ork that will y , it addresses Q 1). Secondly, h question (Q2 ) a l Business Res 15 o es not speci fy an important e supported by g ure 1). Furth x of capabiliti p ared to direc t i ven the inter d ities and valu e f fect of capa b But this co n a ct suppliers’ c i ties (Araújo e same type o e w functions ( r even the d e h e basis of v a a lue and its d e r and seller. e ctives seem t o ’ s ability to m w ell develope d g uration of th e p rocess depen d m pany; (ii) th e s earch questio n n dition the co n c t the configur a guide our an a the role of su p it also takes i n ). earch fy the nature o e lement to ex p static ca p abil i ermore, as fir m es may need t o t and product o d ependence an d e co-creation b ilities on fir m n nection can a c apabilities, n et al., 2003, L o f functions w ( e.g., moving f e velopment o f a lue co-creati o e live r ing to th e o share the id e m ake adequate d at a theoreti c e relationship s d s on two fa c e way supplier s n s: n figuration of b a tion of buye r - a lysis. It show s p p lier’s functi o n to account t h o f those capab i p lore that gap. i ties while in d m s move fro m o exhibit a gr o o riented capa b d goals of bot h m s’ abilities t o a ssume the op amely throug h L oasby, 1998 a w ith supplier s f rom direct to f new capabil i o n. In other w e customer, in d e a that the exp l investments i n c al level, see m s companies e c tors: (i) the s are manage d b uye r -supplie r - supplier relat i s the link bet w o ns and capa b h e process of s u Vol. 7, No. 4; i lities, the m u d irect or co-cr e m the explorati o o wing pro p orti o b ilities. In this h parties (Ara ú o perform sp e posite directi o h the optimiz a a , 1998b; M o s may lead t o indirect func t i ties. In short , w ords, while d d irect functio n l oration of su p n its own tec h m to leave roo m e stablish with capabilities o d . In this regar d r relationship? i onship? w een value cr e b ilities which h u pply manag e 2014 l tiple e ative o n of o n of case, ú jo et e cific o n as a tion, ot a & o the t ions) , this d irect n s are p plier h nical m for their f the d , the ation h as to ment www.ccse n The acces s the type o co-creatio n customers are impor considere d selection m The eval u considere d functions. The perc e configura t Snehota, 1 to be esta b evaluatio n has to d e configura t revision o supplier c a 4. Resear c To investi g Literature p otential ( if and ho w sought to cases was supplier r e differenti a n et.org / ibr Figure 2 . s of functions o f relationship s n requires tha t and consider e r tant factors i n d a proxy to t m ay be seen a s u ation criteria d vital and o f e ption of su p t ion of relati o 1 995; Ford et a b lished with s u n of suppliers’ e velop an int t ion is likely t o o f the selectio n a pabilities wil l c h Methodol o g ate the issue s suggests that t Dubois & Ga d w the configu r perform and w to have a sit u e lationships, a n a tion would al l . A framewor k and their sup p s they are ab l t supplier cap a e d a valuable c n the way ca p t he type of f u s the recogniti o and the sele c f how effecti v p pliers’ capa b o nships, e.g., a l., 1998), act o u ppliers is dri v capabilities ( M eractive proc e o affect the pe r n and evaluat l be explored b ogy s systematized t he cases’ rele v d de, 2002) are r ation of sup p w ith the acce s u ation where t n d another ca s l ow investigat i Internation a k for the analy s p orting capab i l e and willing a bilities are u s c ontribution. T p abilities are u nctions that c o n that suppli e c tion process m v ely their ca p b ilities is als o in terms of c o r’s posture ( G v en by, amon g M öller & Tör r e ss that enh a r ception of ca p ion criteria w b y the custom e in the frame w v ance to the i n essential fact o p lier relations h s s of supplier s t he customer w s e where the s u i ng the links b e a l Business Res 16 s is of buyer-su p i lities is also f to mutually d s ed to full adv a T his framewor k perceived. I n c ustomers are e rs have the a d m ay also be i p abilities are o an import a c ontinuity, co m G adde & Pers s g other factors r önen, 2003). a nces their e f p abilities (Ba r w hich means a e rs. w ork, the rese a n vestigation g o o rs in case sel e h ips is associ a s ’ capabilities. w ould be see k u pplier functi o e tween functi o earch p plier relatio n f ramed by the d evelop (John a ntage, and s o k suggests tha t n a simplified looking for i n d equate capab i i ndicators of w actually bein g a nt issue in m plexity, int e s on, 2004) an d , customers’ g If these are c o f fective utiliz a r nes et al., 20 0 a n additional e a rch adopted a n o als (George & e ction. The se l a ted with the . As such, th e k ing mainly to o ns would be m o ns and capab i n ship manage m supply mana g sen & Ford, 2 o they must b e t selection an d way, selecti o n their suppli e i lities to perfo r w hich suppli e g used to pe r relationship c e nsity, symme d interfaces ( A g oals for each o o nsidered val u a tion. Furthe r 0 7). This may e ffect on ho w n abductive c a & Benett, 2005 l ection’s main different fun c e basic guidel i explore direc m ainly of an i n i lities and als o Vol. 7, No. 4; m en t g ement proces s 2 006, 2008). V e recognized b d evaluation c r o n criteria m a e rs; and the a r m those func t e rs’ dimensio n r form the re q c onfiguration. try (Håkanss o A raújo et al., 1 o f them and b u able, the cus t r more, relatio n lead to an ev e w and what ty p a se study appr o ) and their lea r goal was to c l c tions supplie r i ne in selectin g c t functions in n direct nature. o of how these 2014 s and V alue y the i teria a y be a ctual t ions. s are u ired The o n & 9 99), y the o mer n ship ntual p e of o ach. r ning l arify s are g the their This links www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 4; 2014 17 are reflected upon and framed by the process of developing and managing supplier relationships. With this in mind, two industrial firms were selected: Adira, a manufacturer of machinery to cut steel, and Bosch Termotec, a manufacturer of gas-fired hot water systems. The selection was based on exploratory interviews conducted in both firms to verify their adequacy to the research problem. These interviews involved the managers holding the higher authority over supplier management and confirmed their differentiation in terms of supplier functions: Adira mainly looks for direct functions while Bosch Termotec is mainly focused on indirect functions. The selection of the cases and the analysis of the data followed a process close to the configuration analysis proposed by Ragin (2000). Each case was analyzed individually in order to understand how the several dimensions combine to form different configurations of the same phenomenon, followed by a comparative analysis between the two cases in order to identify and explain their (dis)similarities. The use of two cases is a limitation but offers a great potential for research (Dubois & Araújo, 2004). On the one hand, it is obvious that the findings of this research cannot be straightly generalized, requiring additional research on the basis of other cases or a quantitative approach. However, we have positioned our investigation mainly as exploratory. In this regard, the use of two cases offers the potential to develop a deeper analysis raising issues that otherwise would be difficult to find out. And, following many IMP researchers (cf. Easton, 1995, 1998; Halinen & Törnroos, 1995; Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Hedaa & Törnroos, 2008) this is likely to be potentially fruitful in network studies. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews conducted in the two focal firms and 31 suppliers. In order to capture the multidimensional nature of supply management, the research included managers of several functional areas (purchasing, quality, R&D, logistics, production). One member of each firm’s board was also interviewed to reveal how supplier strategies fit in their corporate strategies. A total of 14 managers from the two focal firms were interviewed. The suppliers’ interviewees embodied the relationship with the focal firms for several years, constituting excellent informants about the issues under study. In all cases but one, the interviews were conducted in the supplier firms and were followed by a visit to the premises. The interviewing was a cumulative process that included as many informants as necessary to saturate the categories under study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). All interviews were taped, transcribed and their analysis was supported by Nud*ist 6 software. Internal documents, Internet sites and press articles were also used as sources of information about the focal companies and their suppliers. 5. Case Studies 5.1 Case 1—Adira Adira is one of the largest Iberian machinery manufacturers. Purchase goods account for 45% of production costs. A manager defined Adira as a “highly vertically integrated company”. The company has two main types of suppliers: catalog suppliers and subcontracted suppliers. Catalog suppliers range from multi-brand representatives to national agents or international firms such as Bosch or Siemens, selling standardized materials and components. Product standardization enables the focal company to buy the same component from different suppliers “keeping its independence”. Relationships with catalog suppliers are normally long with low intensity (less than one contact per month) and complexity (one, or at most a few people from Adira are involved). Subcontracted suppliers range from micro to medium-size firms that manufacture parts according to Adira’s specifications. Adira performs the activities of all but one of his subcontracted suppliers, ensuring a strong control over their processes, costs and prices. Subcontracted suppliers are highly (sometimes totally) dependent on the purchases of Adira and, in several cases, they also buy raw-materials and production tools from the focal company. Relationships with subcontracted suppliers are long, intense (sometimes several contacts per day) and complex (involving several people from Adira). The division of activities and interfaces between Adira and its suppliers has remained the same throughout the years, as machines have always been developed internally with little contribution from the suppliers. Subcontracted suppliers have always been managed through specified interfaces: Adira sets materials/parts and, sometimes, production processes’ specifications and suppliers execute the production activities. Subcontracted suppliers are considered as “external workstations” used to pursue direct/efficiency functions: lower costs, higher flexibility and sourcing safeguarding. Catalog suppliers are managed through standardized interfaces—standardized products are developed internally and without interference from the customer and sold to a variety of other users from different industries. Adira may ask them for some advice for the best options available in their catalogs but the integration of components in Adira’s machines is carried out by the customer, exclusively. This view of Adira’s managers is that apart from the international manufacturers, suppliers have very limited www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 4; 2014 18 capabilities, restraining the possibility of involving them in more complex tasks. The smallest suppliers acknowledge their limited capabilities and lack of interest in moving from manufacturing tasks to more complex ones. The case is quite different with the larger suppliers (subcontracted or catalog) that hardly recognize themselves in the picture drawn by the focal company. Some of them say that they would be able and willing to be more active in areas such as product development, as they do with other customers, but they do not foresee this evolution, which would collide with Adira’s strong internal orientation anchored in a highly competent team. Similarly, Adira recognizes that involving a few specific suppliers in the development phase could be potentially positive, but this is not done because it is not in the company tradition. The major benefits the focal company looks for when selecting suppliers are low prices, product quality/reliability, flexibility and availability. Evaluation process is centered on three main aspects—quality/reliability, prices and speed of delivery. Quality is the clearly dominant factor—from the 84 maximum points that suppliers can achieve, 64 focus on organizational or product aspects related to quality, 10 focus on prices and financial terms, 7 on logistic issues and 3 on relational dimensions. Selection and evaluation processes are consistent with each other and also with the goals of efficiency/rationalization that Adira seeks to achieve through its suppliers. 5.2 Case 2—Bosch Termotec Bosch Termotec (formerly named Vulcano) was founded in 1977 to produce gas-fired hot water systems under a Bosch technological license. The company was designated as competence center of Robert Bosch for gas-fired hot water systems in 1993, and is presently fully owned by this international group. Although the company has outsourced some production activities in the last years, its managers think that it is still too vertically integrated and needs to continue the outsourcing process and concentrate further on its core competences—instant production of hot water. Bosch Termotec’s supplier base comprises medium to large-size, local or foreign companies that have or must develop “a minimal structure of resources in quality, logistics, manufacturing, development and management”. Bosch Termotec’s relationships with its suppliers are generally long lasting and perceived as positive by both sides inasmuch as they are likely to create value by both customer and seller. Throughout the years, activities, resources and interfaces have been changing due to the evolution of Bosch Termotec and its supplier strategy and the evolution of suppliers’ resources and capabilities. Almost all purchased parts are customized to the focal company’s needs. Traditionally, Bosch Termotec specified all parts’ details (functions, materials, dimensions), and suppliers manufactured them. In the last 5–6 years, Bosch Termotec’s development team has been actively seeking suppliers’ assistance to develop the parts. Interfaces are specified or interactive. Interactive interfaces are especially common in areas where Bosch Termotec has insufficient production or knowledge capabilities and does not wish to develop them (like electronics). However, even when specified interfaces are used (e.g., suppliers of outsourced activities), they normally assume an interactive nature, as the focal company expects all suppliers to “proactively produce and suggest new solutions in terms of product specifications, materials or processes”. Relationships’ complexity and intensity vary according to the buying process phase—they are high during the parts’ development or modification phases and lower after the parts enter the regular production phase, when contacts become less frequent and concentrated in the logistic area. The processes of selecting and evaluating suppliers are based on several criteria. Aspects like quality, price, flexibility and continuous sourcing are relevant, but considered as mere qualifying factors. Dynamic and indirect capabilities are what really differentiate suppliers, e.g., their ability to assist in parts development or to be able to “develop a vision of the business, of the complementarities rather than just of the product or the manufacturing”. In this context, suppliers’ networks of customers are an important selection criterion, as they help to evaluate whether or not suppliers have enough critical mass to undertake the investments needed to support the focal firm’s goals. Additionally, suppliers’ relationships with other customers are seen as a source of diversity and as learning opportunities that may reflect positively on Bosch Termotec. The evaluation process calls for the equal participation of three areas – purchasing, quality and logistics. It is a mix of quantitative and qualitative components that constitute an important basis to decide upon how to manage each relationship (maintain, develop, invest, withdraw, etc.). As suppliers’ current offers are less prized than their potential to add value to Bosch Termotec’s own business, and this is hardly evaluated through “formal metrics”, subjective evaluation is of outmost importance. As the Quality Manager explains, “the question ‘what is your opinion about this supplier?’, even if we have a formal evaluation of that supplier, is information, which is as important, or even more so, than all the accounting of deliveries”. In fact, technical excellence is only valued if, at the same time, suppliers understand the focal firm’s business and how their activities and capabilities can be www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 4; 2014 19 proactively used to enhance the customer’s products or to reduce its costs. 6. Research Findings Having described each case, we now turn to their comparative analysis. The links between relationship configurations, suppliers’ functions and capabilities, and the supply management process will be the main focus of our analysis to understand value creation. The sections which follow address each of the research questions explained in Section 4. 6.1 Suppliers’ Functions and Capabilities and Relationships’ Configurations The individual and comparative analysis of the cases revealed both expected and unexpected aspects of the process of value co-creation, namely of the impact of supplier management on how suppliers contribute to the customer’s performance. Table 1 illustrates the different functions and capabilities that both firms seek in their suppliers and the diversity of interfaces used to access them. It highlights Adira’s preference for the utilization of efficiency goals (direct functions) through specified or standardized interfaces and Bosch Termotec’s willingness to pursue co-creation goals (indirect functions) though increasingly interactive interfaces. Table 1. Comparison of dyads’ characteristics Relationships’ characteristics Adira Bosch Termotec Value creation - One side - Value is created by the supplier who delivers it to the buyer - Both sides - Value is co-created by both supplier and buyer Suppliers’ functions Direct functions Indirect functions Suppliers’ capabilities being explored - Production (subcontracted) - Knowledge (components) - Production - Knowledge Technical interfaces - Specified (subcontracted) - Standardized (components) - Interactive - Specified Complexity and intensity - High (subcontracted) - Low (components) Variable (according to the buying process phases) Atmosphere Satisfactory Satisfactory Continuity Usually long (average relationship age: 19 years) Usually long (average relationship age: 12 years) Mutual knowledge - Asymmetric (subcontracted) - Poor (components) Symmetric Symmetry and density of information flows - Low density - Asymmetric Variable (according to the buying process phases) The data presented in this table does not sustain the existence of a clear link between the production or knowledge nature of suppliers’ capabilities being explored by the customer and the type of relationships used to explore them. For instance, relationship atmosphere and continuity are similar in both cases; production capabilities may be supported by highly complex and intense relationships (Adira—subcontracted suppliers) or by low complex and intense relationships (Bosch Termotec’s components production phase); knowledge capabilities may be supported by distant relationships (Adira—component suppliers) or close relationships (Bosch Termotec’s component development phase). In this context, the typology of technical interfaces proposed by Araújo et al. (1999) was a useful tool for analyzing customer-supplier dyads in both cases. In the next paragraphs, the evidence produced in this area is analyzed in more detail. Adira’s uses specified interfaces with its subcontracted suppliers and has a clear dominant role. The capabilities in use by both partners are different (Adira uses knowledge capabilities while the suppliers use production www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 4; 2014 26 customers network actors. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 270–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.07.005 Croom, S., & Batchelor, J. (1997). The development of strategic capabilities—an interaction view. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 8(5), 299–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09576069710179751 Day, M., Fawcett, S., Fawcett, A., & Magnan, G. (2013). Trust and Relational Embeddedness: Exploring a Paradox of Trust Pattern Development in Key Supplier Relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(2), 152–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.12.004 Dubois, A. (1998). Organizing Activities across Firm Boundaries. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203280324 Dubois, A., & Araújo, L. (2004). Research methods in industrial marketing studies. In H. Håkansson, D. Harrison & A. Waluszewski (Eds.), Rethinking Marketing: Developing a New Understanding of Markets (pp. 207–227). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2002). Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8 Easton, G. (1995). Methodology and industrial networks. In K. Möller & D. Wilson (Eds.), Business Marketing: An Interaction and Network Perspective (pp. 411–492). Norwell, MA: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0645-0_15 Easton, G. (1998). Case research as a methodology for industrial networks: A realist apologia. In P. Naudé & P. Turnbull (Eds.), Network Dynamics in International Marketing (pp. 73–87). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Eggert, A., & Ulaga, W. (2002). Customer perceived value: A substitute for satisfaction in business markets? Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17(2/3), 107–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858620210419754 Ehret, M. (2004). Managing the trade-off between relationships and value networks. Towards a value-based approach of customer relationship management in business-to-business markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(6), 465–473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.03.002 Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(5), 532–550. Eng, T. Y. (2005). The Effects of Learning on Relationship Value in a Business Network Context. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 12(4), 67–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J033v12n04_03 Engelseth, P., & Törnroos, J. (2013). Timing Value Co-creation in Supply Networks. Paper presented at the 29th IMP Conference, Atlanta. Fine, C. H., & Whitney, D. E. (1996). Is the make-buy decision process a core competence? Paper presented at the MIT IMVP Sponsors’ Meeting, San Paulo. Florén, H., & Lee, C. (2013). The Business Model and Supply Strategy: What is the Connection between Them? Paper presented at the 20th EurOMA Conference, Dublin. Ford, D., Gadde, L. E., Håkansson, H., Lundgren, A., Snehota, I., Turnbull, P., & Wilson, D. (1998). Managing Business Relations. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Ford, D., Gadde, L. E., Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2003). Managing Business Relationships (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Ford, D., & McDowell, R. (1999). Managing business relationships by analysing the effects and value of different actions. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(5), 429–442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00065-6 Foss, N. J. (1999). Networks, capabilities and competitive advantage. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 15(1), 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5221(98)00030-X Foss, N. J., & Loasby, B. (1998). Coordination and capabilities. In N. Foss & B. Loasby (Eds.), Economic Organization, Capabilities and Coordination: Essays in Honour of G. B. Richardson (pp. 1–13). London: Routledge. Gadde, L. E., & Persson, G. (2004). Developments on the supply side of the companies. In H. Håkansson, D. Harrison, & A. Waluszewski (Eds.), Rethinking Marketing: Developing a New Understanding of Markets (pp. 161–186). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 4; 2014 27 Gadde, L. E., & Snehota, I. (2000). Making the most of supplier relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(4), 305–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(00)00109-7 Gelderman, C. J., & Van Weele, A. (2005). Purchasing Portfolio Models: A Critique and Update. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, Summer, 19–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1055-6001.2005.04103003.x George, A. L., & Benett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Grönroos, C. (2006). Adopting a service logic for marketing. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 317–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470593106066794 Grönroos, C. (2011). A Service Perspective on Business Relationships: The Value Creation, Interaction and Marketing Interface. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 240–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.06.036 Håkansson, H., & Johanson, J. (1993). Industrial Functions of Business Relationships. In D. Sharma (Ed.), Industrial Networks (pp. 13–30). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc. Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing Relationships in Business Networks. London: Routledge. Halinen, A., & Törnroos, J. A. (1995). The meaning of time in the study of industrial buyer-supplier relationships. In K. Möller & D. Wilson (Eds.), Business Marketing: An Interaction and Network Perspective (pp. 493–529). Norwell, MA: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0645-0_16 Hammervoll, T. (2005). Transactional and Value Creational Sources of Dependence. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 12(4), 41–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J033v12n04_02 Handfield, R. B., Ragatz, G. L., Petersen, K. J., & Moncza, R. M. (1999). Involving suppliers in new product development. California Management Review, 42(1), 59–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41166019 Hedaa, L., & Törnroos, J. A. (2008). Understating Event—based Business Networks. Time & Society, 17(2/3), 319–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961463X08093427 Hogan, J. (2001). Expected relationship value: A construct, a methodology for measurement and a modeling technique. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(4), 339–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00152-3 Holmen, E., Aune, T., & Pedersen, A. (2013). Network Pictures for Managing Key Suppliers Relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(2), 139–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.12.003 Ivens, B., Vijver, M., & Vos, B. (2013). Managing and Developing Key Supplier Relationships: An Introduction to the Special Issue, Discussion and Implications. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(2), 135–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.01.002 Johnsen, R. E., & Ford, D. (2006). Interaction capability development of smaller suppliers in relationships with larger customers, Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 1002–1015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.05.005 Johnsen, R. E., & Ford, D. (2008). Exploring the concept of asymmetry: A typology for analysing customer-supplier relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 471–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.05.004 Kim, D., Cavusgil, S., & Cavusgil, E. (2013). Does IT Alignment Between Supply Chain Partners Enhance Customer Value Creation? An Empirical Investigation. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(6), 880–889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.05.021 La Rocca, A., & Snehota, I. (2014). Value Creation and Organizational Practices at Firm Boundaries. Management Decision, 52(1), 2–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2013-0229 Leroy, J., Cova, B., & Salle, R. (2012). The Value Co-Creation Concept: Mixing Up Apples and Oranges? Paper presented at the 28th IMP Conference, Rome. Lindberg, N., & Nordin, F. (2008). From products to services and back again: Towards a new service procurement logic. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 292–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.07.006 Loasby, B. (1996). The Organization of Industry. In N. Foss & C. Knudsen (Eds.), Towards a Competence Theory of the Firm (pp. 38–53). London: Routledge. www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 4; 2014 28 Loasby, B. (1998a). The Concept of Capabilities. In N. Foss & B. Loasby (Eds.), Economic Organization, Capabilities and Coordination: Essays in Honour of G. B. Richardson (pp. 163–182). London: Routledge. Loasby, B. (1998b). The organization of capabilities. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35(2), 139–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(98)00056-0 Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. (Eds.) (2006a). The Service-dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe. Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. (2006b). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470593106066781 Makkonen, H., & Olkkonen, R. (2013). The Conceptual Locus and Functionality of Key Supplier Management: A Multi-dyadic Qualitative Study. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(2), 189–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.12.007 Martinez, M. (2013). Co-creation of Value by Open Innovation: Unlocking New Sources of Competitive Advantage, Agribusiness, 30(2), 1–16. Matthyssens, P., & Vandenbempt, K. (2008). Moving from basic offerings to value-added solutions: Strategies, barriers and alignment. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 316–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.07.008 Matthyssens, P., Vandenbempt, K., & Berghman, L. (2006). Value innovation in business markets: breaking the industry recipe. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(6), 751–761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.05.013 McIvor, R., Humphreys, P., & Cadden, T. (2006). Supplier involvement in product development in the electronic industry: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 23(4), 374–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2006.08.006 Mele, C. (2008). Managing value creation within a project: From value delivery sequence to value co-creating network. Paper presented at the 37th EMAC Conference, Brighton. Mena, C., Humphries, A., & Choi, T. (2013). Toward a Theory of Multi-tier Supply Chain Management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(2), 58–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12003 Menon, A., Homburg, C., & Beutin, N. (2005). Understanding Customer Value in Business-to-Business Relationships. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 12(2), 1–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J033v12n02_01 Moeller, S., Fassnacht, M., & Klose, S. (2006). A Framework for Supplier Relationship Management (SRM). Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 13(4), 69–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J033v13n04_03 Möller, K. (2006). Role of competences in creating customer value. A value-creation logic approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(8), 913–924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.04.005 Möller, K., & Törrönen, P. (2003). Business supplier’s value creation potential: A capability-based analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(2), 109–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(02)00225-0 Mota, J., & Castro, L. (2005). Relationship portfolios and capability development: Cases from the moulds industry. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 11(1), 42–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2005.04.002 O’Cass, A., & Ngo, L. (2012). Creating Superior Customer Value for B2B Firms through Supplier Firm Capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 125–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.11.018 Oinonen, L., & Jalkala, A. (2012). Supplier-Customer Co-innovation Process in B2B Markets. Paper presented at the 28th IMP Conference, Rome. Petersen, K. J., Handfield, R. B., & Ragatz, G. L. (2005). Supplier integration into new product development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design. Journal of Operations Management, 23(3/4), 371–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.07.009 Ragatz, G. L., Handfield, R. B., & Petersen, K. J. (2002). Benefits associated with supplier integration into new product development under conditions of technology uncertainty. Journal of Business Research, 55(5), 389–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00158-2 Ragin, C. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 4; 2014 29 Randall, W., Wittmann, C., Nowicki, D., & Pohlen, T. (2014). Service-Dominant Logic and Supply Chain Management: Are We There Yet? International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 44(1/2), 1–27. Richardson, G. (1972). The organisation of industry. The Economic Journal, 82(327), 883–896. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2230256 Richardson, G. (1998). Some Principles of Economic Organization. In N. Foss & B. Loasby (Eds.), Economic Organization, Capabilities and Coordination: Essays in Honour of G. B. Richardson (pp. 44–61). London: Routledge. Roseira, C., Brito, C., & Ford, D. (2013). Network Pictures and Supplier Management: An Empirical Study. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(2), 234–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.08.006 Rosell, D., Lakemond, N., & Wasti, S. (2014). Integrating Knowledge with Suppliers at the R&D—Manufacturing Interface. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 25(2), 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-12-2013-0171 Roser, T., DeFillippi, R., & Samson, A. (2013). Managing your Co-creation Mix: Co-creation Ventures in Distinctive Contexts. European Business Review, 25(1), 20–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555341311287727 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage. Ulaga, W. (2003). Capturing value creation in business relationships: A customer perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(8), 677–693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.06.008 Ulaga, W., & Eggert, A. (2005). Relationship Value in Business Markets: The Construct and its Dimensions. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 12(1), 73–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J033v12n01_04 Ulaga, W., & Eggert, A. (2006). Value-based differentiation in business relationships: Gaining and sustaining key supplier status. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 119–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2006.70.1.119 Valjakka, T., Kansola, M., Hakanen, T., & Valkokari, K. (2013). Antecedents of Value Co-Creation in B2B Networks. In Y. Shimomura & K. Kimita (Eds.), The Philosopher’s Stone for Sustainability. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32847-3_29 Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004a). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004b). The four service marketing myths: Remnants of as goods-based manufacturing model. Journal of Service Research, 6(4), 324–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094670503262946 Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2008). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.07.004 Wagner, S. M., Eggert, A., & Lindmann, E. (2008). Creating and claiming value in collaborative relationships. Paper presented at the 37th EMAC Conference, Brighton. Wagner, S. M., & Johnson, J. L., (2004). Configuring and Managing Strategic Supplier Portfolios. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(8), 717–730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.01.005 Wagner, S. M., & Hoegl, M. (2006). Involving suppliers in product development: Insights from R&D directors and project managers. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(8), 936–943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.10.009 Walter, A., Müller, T., Helfert, G., & Ritter, T. (2003). Functions of industrial supplier relationships and their impact on relationship quality. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(2), 159–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(02)00230-4 Wilson, D., & Jantrania, S. (1995). Understanding the value of a relationship. Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, 2(1), 55–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1320-1646(94)70278-1 www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 4; 2014 30 Copyrights Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).